The paper must be 6 double spaced pages in size 12 Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins (the works cited/bibliography section will not count towards the page count, and you can go over the page limit if you so wish) and must cite 3 peer-reviewed academic sources.
Your paper should have the following sections: an introduction that introduces the rhetorical artifact you will analyze and clearly articulates your main thesis, a rhetorical concepts section describing the concepts in rhetorical theory you will use to analyze your artifact, an analysis section that analyzes the artifact (split this into subsections if necessary), and a conclusion that summarizes your argument and explains its significance.
Please read the following instructions on each section and the instructions in the point breakdown below carefully.
Introduction
In this section, you should introduce your rhetorical artifact by explaining what it is and why it is significant for analysis, clearly articulate your main thesis (“In this essay, I argue that [central claim about the rhetoric of the artifact]”) and provide a roadmap to explain to the reader the organization of your argument.
Rhetorical concept(s)
In this section, you should explain what rhetorical concept (or concepts) you are using to analyze your object, describing where they come from and how they might apply to other rhetorical artifacts. You should then provide a literature review, in which you either a) briefly describe other scholarly literature on your rhetorical concept and how your application of the concept is different/builds on this discussion, b) briefly describe other scholarly literature about your artifact or similar things to your artifact and explain how your use of this rhetorical concept builds on this conversation, or c) a mixture of both (this is where you can bring in the sources from the annotated bibliography). You should then explain your method of applying them to your object, or basically how you are planning to evaluate your rhetorical artifact with the concept.
Analysis
In this section, you should analyze your artifact. Analysis entails breaking down the artifact into smaller components (for example, breaking down a speech into different specific quotations), and explaining how those different components work rhetorically. You should support the arguments that you make with evidence from the artifact itself and explain the importance of your analytic arguments.
Conclusion
In this section, you should summarize what you have done in the paper and rearticulate your main thesis. You should then further explain what the practical and/or scholarly implications of your main thesis are for the reader.
Grading
Each section will be graded based on clarity, precision, and inventiveness.
Clarity refers to the ease of reading. Does the syntax/grammar distract from the content being provided? Does the paper provide topic sentences that summarize the claims? Does the evidence have a clear connection to the claim? Tip: Read back your sentences out loud after writing them to help test readability.
Precision refers to the accuracy to source material. Do the references to source material apply a reasonable description? Does the paper contain the various checkpoints in the outline? Does the paper use unnecessary language? Tip: Avoid beginning sentences with referent pronouns (it, its, them, their).
Inventiveness refers to the creativity in argumentation. Does the paper show some element of novelty? Do the connections between claims and evidence express additional meaning to the source material? Does the language utilize different tropes to the source material? Tip: Consider how the language explain abstract concepts into more concrete terms (metaphor, simile, ect).
Point Breakdown and Outline
Introduction 30
Historical Context/Background: Provide a brief background on the context your artifact is situated. The context should be related to who or what may be considered the rhetor/rhetoric, the constraints placed on the rhetor/rhetoric, and insight on goals/motives of rhetor/rhetoric.
Describe Artifact: Specify the piece of rhetoric being used for analysis. Create clear boundaries for the artifact you are analyzing. Which seasons of shows? Which speeches? Which social media are you pulling language from, and what is the time periods in which they are posted? These are the types of questions that should be answered in describing the artifact.
Thesis: Provide your overarching argument for the paper. This can be thought of as summarizing your paper into one sentence and should provide the umbrella that all your other arguments hope to prove.
Roadmap: Explain the organization of your paper (“First I [x], then I [x], etc.”)
Rhetorical concept(s) 30
Define: For each term, explain how a past scholar defined the term. If necessary, explain any distinctions in how you will be using the term.
Literature Review: There are three directions that you can go with the literature review: you can describe scholarly literature about other applications of the concept you are using, you can describe scholarly literature about the rhetorical artifact or similar artifacts that you are studying, or a mixture of both. With any of these three approaches, try to articulate how your analysis will build on these previous conversations in scholarly literature.
Method: For each term, explain how the term will be evaluated in the specific context. Example: If you are examining a speech on Logos, Pathos, and Ethos, what framework are you using to evaluate the success/failure of each proof.
Analysis 60
Claims: For each argument, state how the artifact you have chosen exhibits the rhetorical concept, and the implication of such a connection.
Evidence: For each argument, describe the parts of the artifact that prove your claim. You utilize specific quotes/descriptions to exemplify your claim. Do not be vague, for example: if you say that a rhetor displayed confidence, describe what non-verbal or verbal gave the impression of confidence.
Warrants: For each argument, explain how the evidence proves your original claim.
Conclusion 15
Summary: Briefly tie together your various arguments as proof of your thesis.
Implications: Explain the takeaway for the reader. Is there any actions they ought to take? Limits to what you could accomplish? Further questions you had.